risala_search_contents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'search', implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm safety, state changes, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-unaware agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential details. It does not follow a front-loaded structure for key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of 'contents', result format, pagination, or the effect of the language parameter. A search tool needs more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema; it does not clarify the format of query or how language affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Search contents in Risalat Al-Haramain', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like risala_get_contents or risala_get_full_contents, leaving the exact scope of 'search' vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide if this is the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.